The Hope of the World

Nothing is more annoying than a “know-it-all.” I can vouch for the factuality of that statement because I was Exhibit One for many years. Know-it-alls are especially annoying to other know-it-alls. We can’t imagine that any in their right minds would disagree with us. Every now and then I fall back on my know-it-all brain, especially when I’m losing an argument. I then reacquaint myself with how annoying I can be.

Observing Congress over the tenure of the Obama administration makes me wonder if it isn’t a congress of know-it-alls.  An ideologue, which Congress is filled with, is just another name for a know-it-all. These are people who are so sure of themselves they can’t bend a whit, for that would be compromising with what they know not to be the truth. So we have a Congress in national disgrace because they love their point of view, their ideology, more than they love the nation. (Some would even jeopardize the “full faith and credit of the United States” simply because they refuse to admit that some things are more important than a point of view.)

What’s going on in Congress now is a national teach-in on the need for humility. Humility is nothing more than the recognition that I am a finite human being and, as such, cannot know everything, and need others to temper my inadequacies. It is a teachable spirit, a seeker of answers in the midst of vexing questions. Humility in oneself allows us to respect differences with others, even to honor them. For if we lack humility, we lack the capacity to extend grace to our companions along the way. Extending grace is more than merely giving the benefit of a doubt; it is acknowledging our humanity by limiting our own sense of self-importance.

But even now, in a world filled with know-it-alls of all types, there is hope. Shades of gray are replacing simplistic patterns of black and white thinking. The Enlightenment notions of absolutes are giving way to relativity. The screams you hear that “the center will not hold,” come from those who depend on knowing it all and see their assurances fall, one by one. Humility is standing by preparing to replace knowing it all with being at one with all.

In this old world a new sense of itself is emerging. The New Physics is teaching us that all things are connected; that nothing is simply by itself; that everything depends upon everything else. “No man is an island,” and no one is “master of his own fate or the captain of his own soul.” We survive because we are connected and thrive because we recognize that reality. East meets West and rugged individualism is overcome by community. Taking our cue from Gandhi and King, we know that when one suffers, we all suffer, and when one overcomes, we all overcome.

In the religious context, this is working itself out in Interfaith dialogue. Rather than try to convert those of other faiths, we now prefer to understand them. The outcome is that with greater understanding comes a deeper sense of our own faiths and even the recognition that our differences are diminished and our commonalities enhanced. Those who see people of other faiths as objects to convert really don't see human beings. These are reduced to being merely statistics, and in the worst cases, trophies to display.

When people sit down with their gay and lesbian friends or family members, and be with them as people, not stereotypical objects, they discover a common humanity and that any differences that remain are rendered irrelevant. Some even come to celebrate them. But whether we are concerned about religion or sexual orientation, or any other issue, needing to be right will inevitably lead to being wrong.

My sense (call it faith if you will) is that God is orchestrating this Great Transition from me to we. The cosmos is realigning itself against the selfishness of me and mine toward us and ours. When the know-it-alls of the world finally learn that they don’t know the most basic truth of our day, that we need each other, a wholesome prosperity will cover our world, and even Congress will ignore the aisle that once divided a nation. And nation will not rise up against nation, and there will be war no more. This is the hope of the world.

Dr. King’s Beloved Community Is Incomplete

As we celebrate the life of one of America's most important figures today, it is incumbent upon us to honor not only the achievements of the man, but also the vision he set before us. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we living into the world Dr. King had in mind and even gave his life to make possible?

The centerpiece of his vision he called the Beloved Community. It's not a stretch to compare it with Jesus' notion of the Kingdom of God, as both call for a community in which each participant lives for the well-being of the others. It is a community that has only one guiding rule, the Golden Rule, and one pursuit, love in action. In his most famous speech, "I Have a Dream," Dr. King set out to close the gap between our rhetoric and our deeds. He said, “I say to you my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream.  It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.”

Those of us who honor Dr. King and hold out the hope for one day realizing his dream surely recognize that the gap between America's words and deeds is yet to be closed. Although racism is still a factor in America, it is no longer privileged in polite society. Homophobia, on the other hand is, in the words of Harvard's Byrne Fone, "The last respectable bigotry in America."

Coretta Scott King, the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., often said that, were he alive today, Dr. King would be working for LGBT equality. I personally heard her say much the same thing during a fund raising event in San Francisco shortly before she died. This begs a very fundamental question: How could she be so sure?

Let’s face it; the African American community lags way behind the rest of America in support of LGBT equality. Even though most of black clergy are solidly behind the Civil Rights Movement, they oppose gay equality. However, many prominent African American leaders are on record supporting it, including the Reverends Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and Rep. John Lewis.

Although the 1950s and 60s were not brimming with gay rights issues, Dr. King’s most trusted confidant and strategic thinker, Bayard Rustin, was gay, and this was known to King and his inner circle (to say nothing about J. Edgar Hoover and his smear campaign). It is inconceivable that he and Coretta did not have conversations about Bayard, and it is known that King felt his homosexuality should be a non-issue.

However, I believe Dr. King’s certain involvement in gay rights today was based solidly on bedrock beliefs he held which would have naturally led him to this position.

To begin with, Dr. King understood that oppression is oppression is oppression.  That is, all oppression is of one kind and needs to be opposed whenever and wherever it is found. It has always confounded me that black leaders who understand their own oppression aren’t able to transfer it to others who are oppressed. Some think that this is because they feel that focusing on other issues diffuse and diminish their struggle. Others, such as the African American author Keith Boykin in his “One More River to Cross,” points to the general homophobia in the black community. Dr. King did not make this mistake.

Dr. King was an early postmodernist. He understood that all things are connected and rise and fall together. This is seen in one of his most famous utterances: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He further elaborated by saying,

It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated.  We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.   

Unless all things are connected to each other, this could not be true. It doesn't take much in the way of connecting the dots to go from civil rights to gay rights.

Mel White, the co-founder of Soulforce, who looks to Dr. King's nonviolent philosophy to guide his work, insists that the enemy of injustice is not a person or a people, but ignorance. That the dignity of those who would oppose justice for all people must be acknowledged and upheld at all times. You see, when you love your enemy, you no longer have an enemy.  Dr King said that the pursuit of justice "is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the Beloved Community.  It is this type of spirit, and this type of love that can transform opposers into friend....It is this love that will bring about miracles in the hearts of men.”

There is certainly much work yet to be done to complete Dr. King’s dream of the Beloved Community, and today should be a forthright call to remind ourselves of this. To ignore Dr. King’s commitment to removing all injustices, particularly the incomplete pursuit of gay rights, is not only to misunderstand that great man, but to dishonor his commitment of gaining justice for all.

Utah: American Bellwether?

A bellwether is one that serves as a leader or is a leading indicator of future trends. Wikipedia cites its origin: "The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) leading his flock of sheep. The movements of the flock could be noted by hearing the bell before the flock was in sight." Much attention is given to Ottawa County, Indiana every four years because it has predicted the outcome of every presidential race since 1964. As it goes, so goes the nation. California has the reputation for leading the country in innovative trends, from new fads to technological breakthroughs. Colorado may be taking that distinction away from it by being the first state to allow recreational marijuana use. 

A new poll in Utah, conducted by its leading newspaper, The Salt Lake Tribune, suggests that America is fully ready to embrace LGBT equality. In a state whose majority population (58%)  is Latter Day Saints (Mormans), the poll found it is evenly divided between 48% who favor granting same-sex marriage licenses and 48% who oppose it. It is clear that its decade old state ban on same-sex marriage would now likely be defeated if offered a vote. (A similar reality now obtains in California.) This is remarkable in that the LDS church is the leading voice against LGBT equality, and aggressively inserts itself and its money all across the nation to defeat pro-gay advances. Nevertheless, Utah is about to cave. I see this as a leading indicator that not only is same-sex marriage inevitable, it's coming more quickly than anyone ever imagined. 

Fully 72% favor civil unions for same-sex couples. Before Colorado made recreational use of marijuana legal, it first decriminalized it and allowed for medical use. Medical use is the gateway to decriminalization and decriminalization is the gateway to legalization. Similarly, the presence of same-sex civil unions leads to legalizing same-sex marriage. People eventually see the inherent inequality in civil unions, as LGBTs are obviously discriminated against in plain sight. Also the increased visibility of gays and lesbians in everyday situations soon breaks down the pejorative stereotypes and are welcomed as normal and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. 

This poll also puts to bed the unsupported but widespread belief that people don't change. Yes they do. In fact, 36% admitted that their views changed over time. So there is hope, nay, solid evidence that the future is bright, and not so distant after all.

When Does "Truth" become the Enemy of Love?

Early in my adulthood, I was fascinated with a question that occupied my mind throughout my undergraduate and early graduate years. Which is the higher pursuit, love or truth? I came down hard on the truth side. My reasoning could be reduced to a simple thought--how do we know what to properly love unless it is grounded in truth? Not coincidentally, this logic informs much of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical thinking, of which I was very much a part.

Here's how this thinking works: Taking the meaning of love as an action, not an emotion, we are to "love one another." This means we are to behave toward one another as Jesus would, nurturing, sharing with, and protecting those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ. So far, so good. But soon an invidious question emerges: Who is my brother/sister in Christ? The purpose of this question is to make sure that we don't lavish our love on the unworthy (pearls before swine, as it were). Here, love is at the mercy of "truth." With "truth" as our guide, we soon are entrapped in a quagmire of a dualistic sense of the world: who's in/out, right/wrong, good/evil, friend/enemy, worthy/unworthy, on and on. The world is divided up largely between us and them and enemies abound. Perhaps the greatest fatality is the resultant inability to love one's enemies.

The seminary dean while I was getting my M. Div. loved to say that if he found a church closer to the truth than his, he would join it immediately. The criteria for such a church would be doctrinal purity or "more truth here." All other churches are deemed less truthful, and in some cases, the enemy of "truth." It seems that we cannot hold to grace in the presence of  purity laws. Purity wins every time.

(Note: Yesterday's post explains why the pursuit of "truth" is elusive.)

But, how would the priority of love work? Can it inform what is true?

One of the texts that is used to support the priority of truth is Matthew 5:48, where Jesus says, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Perfection is understood here as being perfectly in line with God's truth. But this is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of perfect, as the context shows. Here's the full version:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Recently I was having coffee at a local coffee bar with a friend. We were sitting outdoors in an area frequented by homeless people looking for a little charity. One young lady happened by and hit us up for a little change. I had a loose couple of dollars and handed them over to her. My friend, whose generosity could make him poor, hesitated, sensing a ruse at work. (She said she was looking for money for meds, while sipping on a large "to go" drink.) I am fairly sure she lied to us. But I didn't care. There are no people unworthy of our help as this passage from the Sermon on the Mount shows. for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. Being perfect, therefore, is to behave by loving people the same way God does, indiscriminately, without eligibility tests of any kind. Being human and therefore a child of God is sufficient. That's the truth! (You can make your own application of how this pertains to LGBTs, I'm sure.)

The Problem with an Infallible Bible: You're Not!

The late Harold Lindsell, a prominent Evangelical leader, stated that, "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective". (The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978, p.31)  The key phrase, "it cannot deceive us," is the source of the problem. Couple this with biblical literalism and the problem is compounded. For those who believe in infallibility and literalism believe they can read it essentially without error. "The Bible cannot deceive me; therefore, I am not deceived."

You may have wondered why conservative Christians (mostly the leaders) are so sure of themselves. Well, this is part of the explanation. "I understand (literally) what the Bible says, so I have every right to conclude that it is the truth, and those who disagree with me are wrong."  Wrong, even though they come from the same two understandings and approach the Bible the same way. Those who don't come from the same a priori starting point are wrong by definition.

Simply put, the problem with an infallible Bible is that for it to have any value, you need to be an infallible reader. Many have tried to wear the mantle of (practical) infallibility and crown their hubris by consigning to hell (in the most excessive examples) those who would disagree. The Roman Catholic Church relies on an infallible pope, although papal infallibility has been used only once since it was proclaimed in 1870 to make the Assumption of Mary into heaven an Article of faith.

The notion of Absolute Truth is also subject to the same problem of identifying just what it is. Since we are all, as humans, finite beings, we cannot comprehend Absolute Truth. We can only approach it. The absolute cannot dwell in the finite. This is not to say there is no Absolute Truth; only that it is not a helpful notion so long as we think knowing it is possible. So approaching the biblical text must be done in great humility, our conclusions must be open to adjustment at all times, and our openness to other points of view must be observed with respectful consideration. You may not end up with The Truth, but you will be practicing Christian charity. And that's a pathway to a more expansive understanding of the Bible than thinking you have already arrived will ever take you.

Why Toleration Must not Be Tolerated

So often we hear, “We need to be a more tolerant world…nation…church...people, etc.” It’s certainly said with the best of intentions: a desire for people to get along better, to understand one another better, and to reach out beyond our limited perspectives. Yet it harbors within it the seeds of its own inability to transcend differences and unite with the “others” among us.

First of all, who are the “we” who need to be more tolerant? Simply and starkly put, those with the power to offer or deny a place at the table. In other words, it’s the oppressors, the guardians of the status quo, the gatekeepers of who’s in and who’s out. Toleration at its base is just another form of discrimination: the tolerant only “tolerate” inferiors. Therefore, toleration is a political tool and as such is used by the powerful in service or disservice of the less powerful.

Toleration can only be practiced by those who have the power to rescind it. Toleration asks, “How much can I put up with until I finally reject you?” The tolerater, whether an individual or a society, sets the rules and determines the outcome. History is replete with examples. Rome tolerated Jews and then Christians until they could no longer tolerate them. Gypsies, as with the Jews, have been repeatedly tolerated, then expelled, throughout their history. Minorities everywhere live with the reality that their tolerated status (when they have it) is on loan and they must act accordingly.

Toleration can have a positive function, as a sort of way station on the way to true equality and acceptance. Whereas interracial marriage was once not possible in America, now it’s common place. Antipathy may yield to tolerance, and eventually end in acceptance. The problem with a way station is that it can be confused with the destination and forward progress is halted.

Naturally, where I am headed with this is the notion that “We need to be more tolerant of gays.” “We,” of course, are the straight dispensers of power in the church or society. Who put us in charge of the destiny of anyone? We merely claimed it for ourselves by virtue of our majority position, and we are reluctant to abandon our status.

One thing I’ve learned in my many years of consulting with congregations on gay issues is that when churches initially become “Open and Affirming,” it usually means open to LGBTs and hoping to be affirming someday. We merely tolerate them in the meantime. Some don’t make the transition because they confuse toleration with acceptance. When pastors brag to me about their O&A congregations, I ask a simple question: “When did you hold your last same-sex wedding in the church?” Most of the time I get a reply that means, “We’re not ready for that yet.” Affirmation at its most basic means LGBTs are no longer an “other,” but as fully appreciated as we appreciate ourselves.

Okay, maybe we can’t do away with toleration all together as it does serve as a transitioning point to hoped for full inclusion. But we should never concede that it is sufficient.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Is a Blessing

The controversy surrounding Phil Robertson's anti-gay remarks and his revisionist retelling of how African Americans loved their lives during the Jim Crow era found both supporters and detractors across America. I probably don't have to quote him here, so you can skip to the next paragraph if you're already sick of this coverage.  In an interview in the January issue of GQ, Robertson says homosexuality is a sin and equates it with bestiality and promiscuity. Here's the quote:

It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical. ...Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. 

 He also made comments regarding race and growing up in Louisiana during the Jim Crow era.

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! ...Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

Added to this is the most recent revelation that Robertson married his wife when she was only 16 years old and counsels other men to do the same, even to marry 15 year old girls.  Video here  

Recently his congregation's church secretary, Luanne Watts, told MailOnline they had been bombarded with calls and emails from Americans showing their support. She said: "What has happened is a blessing. Phil believes in the word of God and he will not shift from that." He is actually a very prominent elder and his fellow parishioners are solidly behind him.

Yes, Phil Robertson is a blessing. He is a portal into the mindset of homophobic America. As you know, nothing happens in a vacuum. His patriarchal views about women, his visceral reaction to same-sex love, his "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare" notions of the Jim Crow South, all stem from his literalistic view of the Bible.

A clear distinction needs to be made here. Following World War II, America began to see the rise of so-called "Bible believing churches." Now they are found in every city and small town. I am asked all the time if my church preaches the Bible. This is code for "literal preaching of the Bible." Any church that doesn't read the Bible literally is, in their minds, considered heretical. But the issue really isn't belief or unbelief, it's literal belief, or as I like to call it, informed belief. I definitely believe the Bible; I just read it, and therefore, understand it differently than literalists.

The literal belief system is a "face value" understanding of words on a page, that leaves the meaning at the surface level. Literalists understand words in the Bible just like the words in their newspapers without reference to the changed worldview involved. "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!" You see, you can't take the Bible literally and seriously at the same time. Why? Because to take the Bible seriously you need to delve deep into the text.

The surface reading will more often than not lead you astray. Biblical hyperbole is a handy example. Proverbs 22.6 says, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. I know from experience counseling mothers and fathers of children who departed from the faith, never to return, or ended up addicted to drugs, or incarcerated, who blame themselves and their parenting for the outcome based on this proverb. In their minds they didn't adhere to the way they should go well enough. They failed.

Literalism also accounts for the lingering doubts about racial equality. The "curse of Ham," reproducing only "after their kind," and certain Levitical instructions about keeping things separate (no planing of two kinds of crops in the same field, no wearing of garments composed of two kinds of cloth, etc.) are seen as mandates for segregation, And in case you think the issue of slavery has been decided, a world-class scholar in New Testament backgrounds told me that slavery would not be sinful today if conducted under biblical conditions. This notion is not uncommon in fundamentalist circles. We likely can't charge Robertson with endorsing slavery, but we can say he is comfortable with Jim Crow life.

Literalism is also why some fundamentalists believe that all LGBTs should be executed, based on the literal reading of Leviticus 20:13 while blithely ignoring all the other acts requiring the death penalty (including juvenile delinquency).  Roberson actually acknowledges this. "Do I call for homosexuals to be put to death? No, because if I did, I would have to include those that live in premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, violating the God given ability to divorce and re-marry..."1 In other words, he acknowledges that the Bible calls for all these and more to be put to death, but can't bring himself to go that far. But there are many who would.

Phil Robertson enables us to see the confusion, inhumanity, and twisted outlook that comes from a literal reading of the Bible. Yes, he is a blessing.

______________________________________________________________

1 http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/phil-robertson-was-it-all-a-set-up-to-try-and-control-his-values

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Starting the first of the New Year, I will be resuming this blog with Monday through Friday comments. Selling our home, a move to a new city, and family health issues kept me away for much too long. I look forward to resuming these pages and hearing from you. In the meantime, I will comment on a few important issues.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

Here we go again!

It is said that the last refuge of scoundrels is patriotism.  Today, it is hiding behind the thin veil of sanctimony disguised as "the will of the people."  Whenever the majority votes to deny certain minorities the rights the majority enjoys, it's always "the will of the people." This solemnly uttered bit of piety is found in abundance whenever a state amendment against gay marriage is overturned by a court. It hit its highest decibel when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned California's Prop 8. Some people need to be informed that America is not a simple democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic.  That means that no matter what the majority wants, it cannot be granted if it oppresses the minority. That is, in large measure, what our constitution is for.

So, yesterday, when a federal judge struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, outraged local officials trotted out the canard that "the will of the people" had once again been overturned. It should be noted that when the 14th Amendment was passed, it became THE HIGHEST WILL OF THE PEOPLE, that the majority may not act to deny rights to the minority that they, themselves, enjoy. As state after state make same-sex marriage legal, largely on the basis of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, it is inevitable that the Justices of SCOTUS will eventually make marriage equality the law of the land, if the rest of the states don't beat them to it.

The federal judge overturning the Utah state ban made it effective immediately, so same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses and the mayor of Salt Lake City (no less) performed the first legal ceremony in the state. This will not be without opposition from the powers that be. Both Utah's governor and attorney general are pursuing whatever legal options they have, but their prospects are bleak.

Whenever an unjust law is overturned by a judge, we hear the accusation, "activist judges!" Yes, indeed. These judges are actively defending the highest will of the people as understood in the 14th Amendment.

Why Are Some Conservative Christians So Adamant That They Have the Truth?

Every now and then I take notice of what's happening in the Evangelical/Fundamentalist world. After all, I am a product of that world and look for signs that there may be movement away from traditional stands that might mean conversations can begin in earnest, especially about LGBT issues. And there are signs. There is movement away from the rigid notions of anti-evolution, awareness that the Bible is not fully without error, and some even hold out for an open-ended future unknown by God. Yet, unfortunately, these and other more open views are not held by the majority of conservative Christians.

I'm most interested in their view of the authority of the Bible, as their fall-back, bedrock position on all gay issues is that the Bible is unequivocally opposed to homosexuality. That this is demonstrably not true is a subject I have taken up throughout this blog, and wrote a book about it. (See the side bar on the left of this post.) My latest posts on Satan point to the problems associated with this belief, yet one more needs to be written: "What Is Lost in Rejecting Belief in a Literal Satan?" Stay tuned. As a warm up to that post, I'd like to examine another sacrosanct belief in conservative Christianity, the belief in the literal Adam. It sheds a lot of light on their notion of biblical authority.

Recently, my attention was drawn to a blogger who listed ten reasons why Christians must believe in an historical Adam, by Kevin DeYoung. (Blog here.) Others have taken each of his ten points and evaluated them quite well. (Here, for example.) You will be rewarded by looking these over. However, my interest is not in engaging each point, but in looking at the bottom line issue that is the heart of Evangelical theology and clearly delineated in the post.

If you read DeYoung's post, there is really only one argument he made, and he made it over and over. It is this: We must believe in a literal, historical Adam because the Bible believes it. He uses Moses, Paul, and Luke as his authorities. This is a perfect example of circular reasoning. "We must believe the Bible, because the Bible believes it." A faulty syllogism is often used in a similar way: Major premise: "Everything in the Bible is true." Minor premise: "A literal Adam is in the Bible." Conclusion: "Therefore, there was a literal Adam." Syllogisms stand or fall based on their major premises (if syllogisms are useful at all). This one's major premise is demonstrably not true.

What's really going on here is a desperate attempt to save the whole of Evangelical theology which depends upon the whole biblical story being literally and historically true. Take any one plank away and the edifice falls to the ground, at least in their minds. So, for Paul's notions of sin and salvation, there must be a literal Adam, or his argument fails. If his argument fails, so does the substitutionary atonement doctrine (Jesus died in your place). If that falls, then Jesus as Savior falls with it. That is to say, the Evangelical notions fall, not necessarily the essence of Christianity itself.

So, what does all this have to do with a blog that is essentially about gay issues as they impact the Christian faith and the public square? Perhaps it will be clearer now why conservative Christians cling so desperately to the literal sense of a biblical text. Once we begin to allow for non-literal meanings, it's a slippery slope that can only end in a devaluing of the conservative Christian understanding of Christianity. It's less an argument against LGBTs and more about shoring up conservative doctrine. Gays and lesbians are collateral damage.

In the less rigid Evangelical circles, where social issues are becoming more important, along with a less literal understanding of some biblical stories, there is less interest in trotting out the clobber passages to beat LGBTs over the head with, and more interest in understanding and loving them. Interesting, huh. It seems you can't have a literal approach to the authority of Scripture and an openness to new information at the same time.

Conservative Christianity is closing ranks against the onslaught of the postmodern era, and is losing the battle. In a famous sermon in 1922, Harry Emerson Fosdick asked, "Will the Fundamentalists Win?" We can now say it doesn't look like it. And with the diminishing of a literalistic approach to the Bible, we see an increase in acceptance of those we formerly thought were not suitable companions along the Way. Open Bibles, open minds, open Christianity; what a thought!

Exorcising the Devil

Although the discussion of my last posting was done mostly on Facebook, it drew a few who found my admission here that I don't believe in a literal devil, off-putting. So I decided to continue the theme at least for one more post.

Some objected that since the devil is prominent in the New Testament, who am I to disregard that witness? Whenever one decides against a biblical point of view, it must be for good reason. Perhaps, I should first defend the notion that not agreeing with portions of the Bible is not heresy. In fact, we do it all the time. There is even a biblical precedent, after all, for doing so. The Deuteronomist School plainly taught that faithfulness to God will bring abundant blessings, including prosperity, health and progeny. Qohelet (the "preacher" of Ecclesiastes) begged to differ. His experience was just the opposite: the rich oppressed the poor, the faithful poor languished. 

An Evangelical commentator (read "Bible believer"), in an interview about his upcoming commentary on Ecclesiastes, summarizes the tone of the book. (“Everything is MEANINGLESS!” Interview with Pete Enns on Ecclesiastes) 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2011/09/27/everything-is-meaningless-1/

Qohelet looks around him and concludes that all of life is utterly senseless and absurd (“vanity of vanities” as the KJV puts it, “meaningless” in the NIV)....

You can’t make Qohelet out to be theologically safe. He does not give you that option. Nor can you write Qohelet off, either, as some heretical, impulsive, or immature simpleton. The fact that he is allowed to carry on for 12 chapters should send a clear signal that his words are not meant to be brushed aside.

Further, the end of the book won’t let you dismiss Qohelet’s words. In 12:9-14 we hear the voice of the book’s narrator (the same narrator who introduced Qohelet in 1:1-11). He neither condemns nor even corrects Qohelet, but calls him wise.

In the New Testament, James argues with Paul about the place of works in salvation. As Paul saw it, For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 But James disagreed: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2.24

Marin Luther thought James undercut salvation by faith alone so dramatically that he referred to the Book of James as "an epistle of straw," and tried to get it removed from the Bible. 

Arguing with the Bible is nothing new or cause for alarm. In fact, there is nothing honorable about taking everything in it at face value and not loving God with all of one's mind.

As for the rest of us, who would defend slavery simply because the Bible does, or the silencing of women in the worship assembly, or that women will be saved through childbearing? Or that long hair on a man is "unnatural?" (We could go on and on, couldn't we, but we won't.)

Now, as to specifically why I feel it is responsible to reject the idea of a literal devil or Satan, I first refer you to the harm that this belief has caused. Witch hunts, Inquisitions, exorcisms of the mentally ill, the naming of certain individuals as the Antichrist, assigning demonic motives to enemies, superstitions that immobilize people, living in fear of Satan that diminishes joy in the Lord, all stem from implications people see in a literal Satan who may materialize at any moment.  Admittedly, this argument is on tenuous ground, because belief in God has caused much harm as well. However, much of that harm is due to the belief in a literal devil that prompts others to defend God through various means, violent and otherwise, and see demonic presence in processes and people otherwise without fault. 

While I readily admit that some biblical writers believed in a literal Satan or devil, I'm not obligated to follow suit, as one could hardly escape that belief given the prevailing worldview of their time which is radically different from our own. I find a much more compelling view that comes from treating Satan as metaphor than reality. 

Before we dismiss metaphor as lacking, let us consider for a moment that even the notion of God must finally be considered metaphorically. Describing God in anthropomorphic terms, such as the hand of God, or the face of God, or anger, or even love, is to use metaphors, because God cannot really be described in any other way. God is a metaphor for that which we cannot get beyond. This prompted Tillich to say that after we have said God is, we are now in the reduction of God business. That's why he also said that the true representation of God is "the God above God," the unknowable God that is beyond human comprehension. 

Finally then, if God is a metaphor for that which upholds all good and is the ultimate subject of our devotion, Satan is a metaphor for all that is evil. This seems to me a better notion than Satan as instigator of evil. The "satanic forces of evil" surely describe a potent influence in our world, but not by assigning a real personage behind it. As I noted in yesterday's post, evil is real and is part of humanity's story quite apart from a need to create a source beyond humanity to explain it. In fact, if biblical explanations are necessary, how about this one: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isaiah 45.7

Given the horrors of our present world, those who despise our president because they think he's a Muslim, those who despise Muslims in general, those who kill the enemies of their God, those who kill abortion doctors, those who hate all non-Whites, those who send people to hell for whatever reason, those who hate gays, those who hate generally—most of them believe in a literal devil. Ironically, they are doing the devil's work for him, which prompted St. Theresa of Avila to remark: "I don't fear Satan half as much as I fear people who fear Satan." A popular bumper sticker in our time says, "Dear God, please save me from your people." I'll settle for just saving us from those whose belief in a literal devil leads them to make enemies of any who believe otherwise. 

The Devil Is in...Justice Scalia?

I've always considered myself at an advantage for not believing in a literal devil, Satan, or any other personification of evil. I don't concern myself with hell, eternal punishment or the like. I'm often asked when I reveal this if I don't believe in evil either. Why one seems to follow another keeps many in the literal devil fold, but it's not necessary. Evil exists and no devil is needed to authenticate that.

Consider the witness of the First Testament. The devil makes only rare appearances and those are very different from our received notions, usually as the literal translation of Satan indicates, the accuser. Take the Book of Job, for instance. Long after we are taught that Satan was cast down from heaven along with his angels, a picture drawn more from Milton than Scripture, we find him in a coffee klatch with God and associates. What's he doing back up there other than to serve as a trope for the book?

Then in 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read, "Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel." Here he is playing the more traditional role of tempter. However, the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24:1 casts a whole different light.  "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.’" The older version (Samuel) explicitly states that God does the inciting. How do we move from God to Satan? The Chronicles statement comes after the introduction of full-blown dualism into Israel's theology due to their exposure to Zoroastrianism during the Babylonian Captivity. Just as today's religious conservatives can't imagine God tempting anyone to do evil, neither could the writer(s) of 1 Chronicles. So a convenient switch was made.

This is all to say that the First Testament got along quite well without the use of the devil to explain all the evil that transpires throughout its pages. Human beings are perfectly capable of creating evil without any help. Note that following Cain's murder of Abel, God declares that evil is "crouching at the door" ready to spring on humanity, and Satan's entrance is delayed for a least a millennium. (And the serpent in the Garden is "one of the creatures God made.")

I got to thinking about this when I heard that in a recent interview Justice Antonin Scalia asserted his belief in a personal devil. Here's a brief summary from the Los Angeles Times.

 “Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. That’s standard Catholic doctrine,” [Scalia] said. “You are looking at me as though I’m weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil?” Indeed, polls have consistently shown that 70% to 75% of Americans share Scalia’s belief.

Naturally, belief in the devil does not stop there. Some actively seek to find where the devil is currently at work. Once determined where that is, we now have located both those on the devil's side and the "good guys." Those devil believers see the devil behind abortion, government expansion, Obama Care, gay marriage, et al, just as the devil was at work of old in inciting David to go against God and hold a census of Israel. No wonder there is little or no compromise--you can't be guilty of aiding and abetting Satan, after all. What would God think of that?!!! When an ideology is backed by demonology, no less than total destruction of the enemy (Satan and his followers) is called for. Here's an enlightening observation from the Evangelical online site for Christianity Today about the Tea Party Caucus in Congress.

This caucus is more evangelical than the rest of the House. About 45 percent of the caucus attend an evangelical church, compared to 13 percent of others in the House. Another 30 percent are mainline Protestants, mostly of a largely Southern variety. Several Mormons are also part of the caucus.
There are no African-Americans or Jewish members. The caucus is less likely to include Catholics, with only 15 percent who are members of the caucus compared to 32 percent of those who are not.

The article is entitled, "Evangelicals and Tea Party Overlap in Congress, Public."

The 70% to 75% of Americans who believe in a literal Satan are mostly among the Evangelical and Southern mainline denominations. The connection between the belief in Satan and their unwillingness to compromise is clear. Not only is the devil in the details, it's in the intransigence of ideology, as well.

An Answer to a Gay Conservative's Opposition to Gay Marriage

In a request by the editors of 10 Thousand Couples for people to evaluate a commentary by Mr. Doug Mainwaring, found here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/, I offered the following statement.  Please read his statement before continuing on.

*************************************************

For someone who claims to be led by reason, Mr. Mainwaring contradicts himself throughout and offers specious arguments. His lead assertion that “Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance” is undermined by his statement that “marriage is immutable,” and his fear of the weakening of traditional marriage.

Throughout, he makes unsupportable assertions, each one demonstrably false. 

1.      False assertion #1: Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be.

His assertion that “eros is promoted in its stead,” fails to note that when Plato and other early Greek philosophers praised philia, they included eros in the equation.  According to the influential journal Psychology Today, “Whereas Aristotle is not nearly as interested in erotic love (erôs) as he is in friendship (philia), for Plato the best kind of friendship is that which lovers can have for each other. It is a philia that is born out of erôs, and that in turn feeds back into erôs to strengthen and to develop it.”  Non-erotic love between friends is truly beautiful, but they will likely be heterosexuals who find eros in other relationships.

I wonder why he leaves out “love between women”? 

2.      False assertion #2: “To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.”

This assertion goes against prevailing psychological and sociological conclusions. Here’s just one example: The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry approved the following statement in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender parenting in 2009:

All decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the interest of the child. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are per se superior or inferior from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared with heterosexual parents. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child.

The real “deprivation” here is that Mr. Mainwaring is withholding from his children the kiss of philia that every parent owes his or her children.

3.      False assertion #3: “Marriage is not an elastic term; it is immutable.”

Just a cursory exploration of the history of marriage demonstrates how marriage has evolved over the centuries from polygamy, including polyandry as practiced in Britain in Julius Caesar’s time, the acceptance of concubines and more recently mistresses as part of the family, eras of no religious significance until 1000 AD in the Roman Catholic west, and, of course, common law marriages throughout time.  So what makes marriage “immutable”?  Certainly not society, or tradition, or religion which have shown themselves remarkably flexible in honoring changing arrangements over the millenniums.

4.      False assertion #4: Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine (sic) families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives. [Emphasis mine]

Mr. Mainwaring is not simply a gay man with a personal opinion. He is a right wing activist with an agenda.  This observation is fair game as he opines at length against liberals and gay rights activists.  He is merely a social conservative who happens to be gay.  His politics is not the issue; his claims of objectivity and reason are and they just don’t hold water. At best, one may say that his opinions are right for him, and he is entitled to them, and we wish him well.  But to draw from personal insight and make them universal is asking too much in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

10 Thousand Couples offers a unique approach to gay issues, especially for gay families, on their website:

http://10thousandcouples.com/.  Check it out and let me know what you think.  You will find my first article for them, "But My Bible Says...Pt. 1" here: http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/october-2013/article/but-my-bible-says-part-1.

Are We in a Post "Open and Affirming" Church Age?

A new approach to being a congregation welcoming of LGBTs is being embraced by many churches today. But first, a little background.

The major mainline denominations in America have organizations within them to encourage gay acceptance and affirmation. In my Disciples of Christ denomination, it's GLAD, Gay and Lesbian Affirming Disciples. Each organization has its procedures for becoming officially Open and Affirming.  Most of them include a rigorous study and discernment process that should include the whole congregation.  This normally takes many months to complete.  It's comprehensive, well thought out and works. The process ends with a vote.  If the congregation votes to become "Open and Affirming," it is listed as such in denominational records and can begin to advertise itself as such.  The idea is to insure that congregations understand the issues fully and enter the gay community with no reservations.

My experience with congregations that have completed the process and became O & A is that they begin by being open while wanting to (eventually) become affirming.  Some make the transition successfully, others never do.  Here's the question that I put to these church's leaders: "Have you had any gay weddings? And if not, why not?" This question identifies the truly affirming congregations.

When I was actively engaged in consulting with congregations on O & A issues, I often ran across congregations which believed they were open and affirming without having to go through the process. Not one of them would allow gay weddings.  Why did I insist that this is the defining act of O & A? Because if you don't offer gays the very things you offer straights, you are not affirming. This extends to church leadership, including calling gay pastors.  Therefore these churches were simply fooling themselves.  The harm in this comes when LGBTs hear that one of these churches is safe, so they visit and soon learn it is not.

Lately, I've noticed a remarkable change. In my hometown there are two congregations that are not officially Open and Affirming, yet hold gay weddings. Having visited them on several occasions, I know they have made the transition to affirming without the benefit of the official process.  This phenomenon can be observed in cities across the USA.  What's going on here?  Are we in a post O&A age?

America, by osmosis, has become a majority Open and Affirming nation. Most of this was accomplished by two forces, the coming out of LGBTs in large numbers and the effective gay rights campaign. In 2004, just 36 percent of Catholics favored gay marriage, along with 34 percent of mainline Protestants. Now it's 57 percent of Catholics and 55 percent of mainline Protestants. Even among white evangelical Protestants support has risen from 11 percent in 2004 to 24 percent in 2013.  The more we've gotten to know LGBTs, the more we have taken their side.  Naturally, this spills over into our congregations who find themselves moving steadily into an affirming mode.

So, do I think there is no longer a need for O&A study and discernment as advocated by our denominations? Certainly not.  It would be tragic to use this as an excuse to subvert the process. This will still be useful for many a church, especially where there is overt opposition or remaining reluctance.  But I will now be willing to admit, as I haven't been until recently, that some churches have arrived there without the benefit of the process. Or, perhaps, better, became truly affirming by participating in the ongoing drama of justice-seeking in America.

Can the Gospel Be "Good News" Again?

A sermon preached on August 11th, at Valley Ministries MCC, Stockton, California
(30 minutes)

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 4: It's Use of Fear to Create Enemies

In a casual Google search for "gay threat to America" (try it yourself), this is the first item on the list, found here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705285940/Gays-greatest-threat-to-America-Buttars-says.html?pg=all

Sen. Chris Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.

"I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society," the West Jordan Republican said in a recent interview with documentary filmmaker Reed Cowan. "In my mind, it's the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide."

Buttars is a Utah state senator, and a Mormon, so it's not unusual that he would be anti-gay. What is unusual is his over-the-top rhetoric. "The greatest threat to America," and comparing LGBTs to radical Muslims would make Joseph McCarthy proud of such overreach. Combing through the article, I could not find anything to back up his comments except the notion that the destruction of the family will lead to the destruction of America. So far, there is no evidence that gay marriage will do anything of the kind, and in fact, seems only to be a strengthening force for marriage overall. 

Note, too, his use of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of all the Bible passages used to denounce gays, this is the most used and least applicable. Biblical scholars long ago removed any association with homosexuality from this story. Some of the most vigorous opponents of gays no longer consider Sodom and Gomorrah relevant. I attended a lecture by Joe Dallas, a leading proponent of Reparative Therapy (gays can change their sexual orientation). In going over the biblical passages that he said supported homosexualty as sinful, he didn't mention Sodom and Gomorrah at all. I check his handouts and not even there was any mention made. So I asked him, "Have you lost the battle on Sodom and Gomorrah?" To which he replied, "Yes." Nevertheless, some people will continue to abuse this scripture regardless of its inapplicability.

Then there's the "gay recruitment" scare tactic, designed to alarm parents and set them against their children's schools. Scott Lively's, "Seven Steps to Recruit-proof Your Child," purports to document the recruiting activities of gay activists, and it set off a spate of similar approaches to impede gay acceptance. Here's a typical version of how this works (from Wind Commentary http://www.wnd.com/1998/10/526/):

A training video called “It’s Elementary” teaches elementary school teachers how to get the “gay” message into primary grade classrooms. Books like “Daddy’s Roommate” and “Heather Has Two Mommies” are all too commonplace. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, has openly adopted guidelines for promoting homosexuality in public education and many private schools already have yielded to the pressure to present homosexuality as a normal.

Imagine what goes through the minds of 12-year-old boys and girls when a gay activist tells them that 10 percent of the population is gay, and that 10 percent of their class has this “sexual orientation.” At this tender age, classrooms of teenagers and pre-teenagers, with their hormones raging, are being encouraged to follow their urges and experiment. If a child voices a question about the possibility of being gay to a teacher or other school officials, the parent most likely never will hear about it. These children often are referred to an outside “gay” counseling center run by active homosexuals.

This kind of scare works because it's built on the fallacy that gays can change their orientation. They can't, and neither can straights. Whenever someone suggests to me that sexual orientation is a choice (I can't believe we're still having these conversations...ugh!), I ask them how easy it would be for them to change. Another ugh! So if a 12 year-old is introduced to the gay orientation in a school class, there is nothing in that experience that can change his or her already set orientation. Here's a summary from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

The one thing that all these hate and fear-mongers have in common is the lack of evidence to support their claims. Note the appeal in the Wind Commentary to "imagine what goes through the minds of 12-year-old boys and girls." Yes, imagine. Imagine, because that's all that's left to you after the experts have spoken. 

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 3: Their Use of the Bible

Here are a few things to bear in mind when the discussion of homosexuality and the Bible arises. First, there is no word in either Greek or Hebrew for homosexual and the like. More importantly, there is no concept of sexual orientation, either. In the Greco-Roman world, there was only appropriate and inappropriate sex. Dio Chrysostom (a contemporary of the apostle Paul) famously said that the same passion that drove a man to a female prostitute would drive the same man to a male prostitute. 

Since there is no word for homosexuality, no Bible translation should have "homosexual" or its synonyms in it. Some, using the Dynamic Equivalent translation process, think they have found a modern equivalent in homosexual or "sodomy." Yet, what we know of homosexuality today is far removed from that of the ancient past. There is no apples-to-apples correspondence. Quite to the contrary, the differences in sexual behaviors are striking and most are not replicated in our day. Given what Chrysostom said, which is typical of his day, even heterosexuality cannot be thought of as a concept then, or considered anything like what we know of it today. As regards the term "sodomy," it was not coined until 1000 years after the New Testament was written. Any Bible translation that uses it is anachronistic. 

So, when people say, "My Bible says that homosexuality, sodomy, etc., is a sin," they are not quoting the Bible, they are quoting a mistranslation purporting to be Scripture but isn't. 

As for "my Bible says," here's how I begin the discussion of interpreting the Bible in my book, Marriage Equality:

The ultimate recourse for those who want to keep homosexuality on the sins list is, “My Bible says....” The sentence generally ends with “...homosexuals are an abomination,” or, “...gays are going to hell,” or “…God hates gays.” This is intended to be the final word on the matter; the Bible has spoken, the issue is clear, we can move on to other things. How so? Because the Bible has spoken.

The Bible, of course says no such thing. I will prove it to you. Go get your Bible. Now, take it in your hands and bring it up to your eyes. Say to it very clearly, “Bible, tell me, what do you have to say about homosexuality?” If you don't hear anything, repeat your question; maybe louder this time. If there is still no answer, shake it; it may be taking a nap. Still hearing nothing? Well, that's all right, because if you do hear the Bible answering, you may be on your way to a psychiatric hospital. 

The Bible “says” nothing. It is an inert object, words on paper. It can’t utter a sound. Of course, you knew that all along, yet you may still want to repeat that the Bible says something. What is really going on is that people say the Bible says something; people speak on behalf of  the Bible. The Bible is deaf and mute.

Unfortunately, people too often make what “the Bible says” what they want it to say. You see, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted reading of anything, from the daily newspaper to the Bible. All of us read (or “hear what it says”) though a filter or a lens. No one can read without one. Your filter/lens is everything that you have learned through your culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, education...you get the point...that shapes how you perceive meaning. Every word you read or hear is processed through this filtering system. 

Everyone reads or hears the same word or words differently. Depending on how far apart our systems are, we can basically understand each other or totally misunderstand. In explaining this to an adult Sunday School class, one member said, “I can think of something we both read that needs no filtering, that is straightforward and immediately understood.” “Okay,” I said. “Let's have it.” He responded, “God is love.” I replied with, “What do you mean by 'God' and what do you mean by 'love'”? He got my point.

I could fill this post with any number of quotes from religious leaders, politicians and pundits of all kinds who repeat how the Bible condemns gays. This is unnecessary because you, my reader, have first-hand experience in hearing/reading such and in voluminous quantity. Finding an informed commentator who actually has studied the issue and isn't merely passing on unreflected upon, second-hand opinion is rare. Such is the success of the Anti-gay Industry. It has convinced people that the Bible condemns homosexuality when it doesn't even know what that is!

The success of convincing the public that homosexuality is evil spills over into the nonreligious as well. A question was posed in Yahoo Answers, "Are there any anti-gay nonreligious out there?" Here's the answer voted "best" by the readers:

Yes there are, I have no religious affiliations and I think being homosexual is an abomination to mankind, the anus is not a pleasure organ, if everyone was homosexual then the world would end, there would be no reproduction. Homosexuals will end us all, but they are good for spreading diseases, but if being homosexual is acceptable so should having sexual intercourse with animals, it's about the same thing, think about that.

Note the use of "abomination." Where do you suppose that came from ? And all the reasons given for being anti-gay are right out of the Industry's playbook, and they are all twisted from biblical sources.  One has to wonder about the critical thinking skills of the voters who made this response the best. It just shows how much work is left to do. 

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 2: Sources of Deception

The Anti-gay Industry is just that, an industry. It is an admixture of various parachurch ministries, churches, academics, and psychological practitioners that are organized around one mission: to stop the advancement of gay rights in America. It has enormous power in the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian world, and its spokespeople are the most evident in the mainstream media. They are "the voice and face" of what purports to be Christianity in America. (Remember how Jerry Falwell seemed to be on every channel at once?) They occupy high offices in Congress, fill various federal and state legislatures and agencies, and are found on school boards in every district. And, yes, they are mostly Republicans, a condition that worries not only the more moderate Republicans, but Democrats who understand the need for a two-party political system that actually works for the good of the whole.

Their ant-gay bias is a combination of many factors, chief among them being a literal understanding of the Bible. It's important to state at the outset that EVEN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE does not support the notion that homosexuality is a sin or that God despises LGBTs. (For a complete analysis of all the Bible passages that are used to support anti-gay bias, see the chapter "But My Bible Says..." in my book, Marriage Equality. Clicking on the icon book cover on the left of this page will take you to Amazon.) That said, many people are led to believe the worst, and they do. Most of them are genuinely sincere and their motivations are pure; they simply are convinced that homosexuals are a menace to America by the Anti-gay Industry, which exploits their biblical naivety, and feeds them propaganda on a daily basis through their radio and TV shows, websites, emails and fundraising letters.

Another factor that supports the Industry in its subtrafuge is the exploitation of human's natural fear of "the other." Differences can be exploited to pit people against people as we have seen in race-baiting politics, the "Huns" of World War I, the "atheistic communists" of the Cold War, and LGBTs of today. If you are continually subjected to messages from your pastor, legislators, and people you trust that the greatest menace to your family and your children is gay rights, you naturally will be inclined to believe it without access to evidence to the contrary. How easily some people were convinced of this is in how many actually believe that same-sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. No credible evidence of any kind has been submitted to substantiate this. It's simply taken as a given. Good grief!

Pseudoscience and pseudopsychology supply the intellectual backdrop for the Industry. The technical name for the theory that gays can change their orientation is Reparative Therapy. It is repudiated by every substantial psychological and medical professional group across the board in America. In order for there to be such a therapy, it first must be established that there is a strong need for such.  Here is where the onslaught of propaganda enters the picture that creates the impression that gays are abnormal, deviant, psychologically disturbed, pedophiles, disease ridden, short lived, promiscuous and (you fill in the blank). 

Then there are the "studies" that purport to show a very dark side to life in the gay community. Whenever they are peer reviewed—which is seldom, because they know they can't withstand that kind of scrutiny—they are universally shown to be fallacious, if not wholly made up. 

Over the next several postings we will examine these and other sources that the Industry draws upon to shape their arguments and mislead their constituents. We will look at the journals, associations,  ministries,  institutions, and leaders that subvert the truth and make life miserable for millions of LGBTs who otherwise would be free to live their lives as unencumbered as the rest of us.   

In the meantime, I leave you with this apology that John Paulke, a longtime advocate against gay rights, recently gave to the gay community at large. He was once the chairman of Exodus International and the organizer of Focus on the Family's, Love One Out program.

For the better part of ten years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what's known as the "ex-gay movement," where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination. At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not….Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.

 Finally, I know there are still accounts of my "ex-gay" testimony out there being publicized by various groups, including two books that I wrote about my journey. I don't get any royalties from these publications, and haven't since I left the ministry nearly ten years ago. I discourage anyone from purchasing and selling these books or promoting my "ex-gay" story because they do not reflect who I am now or what I believe today.

The full text of the apology can be found here: http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2013/04/24/john-paulk-formally-renounces-apologizes-harmful-ex-gay-movement

One final thought. Although for many months Mr. Paulk has repudiated his books, repeatedly requested they be ignored, and called on his former allies to stop using his now rejected testimony, the Anti-gay Industry continues to use them. Such is the nature of the forces we are up against.

The Anti-Gay Industry: Fear-Baiters for Profit and Power, Part 1

 "A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat.  If no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured." - Leo Strauss, 20th century political philosopher

One of the oldest frauds in the world is to manufacture an enemy and then exploit the fear engendered for all the money/votes/power possible. The classic American example is the notorious Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, whose Red-baiting and hysterical claims of a communist under every government bed during the Cold War era of the 1950s, gave us the sobriquet, "McCarthyism," the modern equivalent of "crying wolf."

A present day McCarthy wannabe is former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla. At a town hall meeting, West said he thinks as many as 81 House Democrats "are members of the Communist Party." He was referring to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Fortunately, no one took him seriously, at least no one with critical thinking skills.

I remember as a child listening to the radio broadcasts of Rev. Billy James Hargis and the Christian Crusade. Hargis was crusading against the Red menace that was about to take over America, and its sly maneuver to corrupt our youth through teaching sex education in schools. It turns out that Hargis was doing his own corrupting with the boys of his church, college and camp, and was forced to resign from all his ministries and organizations. (Hargis denied the charges, but left nonetheless.) Since then there have been a spate of people who decry this and that who have been found involved intimately in the things they (publically) abhor. Ted Haggard, and Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter come to mind.

This is not to say that all who indulge in enemy-baiting are insincere hypocrites. Not at all. There are many who find threats to their prefered view of things that are not only sincere, but consistent in their words and work. I am concerned here with 1) the reality that "enemies" make for good politics as well as personal gain, and 2) there are those who regularly exploit fear of enemies and even create enemies out of whole cloth. Today, with communism largely confined to Cuba, exploiters needed to find a new "enemy."

I am reminded of an incident Mel White relates when he was ghost writing Rev. Jerry Falwell's "autobiography." They were together in San Francisco where Falwell spoke to a large audience in a downtown hotel. After the speech, they had to muscle their way into their limo because a local gay protest had managed to block their way and, once in the car, impeded their progress. Amid the shouting, jostling of the car, and general hoopla, Falwell turned to Mel and said, "If I didn't have these gays, I'd have to invent them."

Yes, some "enemies" to exploit are readily at hand. And the Anti-gay Industry is alive and well today doing just that. I will be posting a series on the more destructive of these neo-McCarthyites over the next few days. We will begin by examining the pool of accumulated data that purports to be scientific studies that all the major players draw from, yet turn out to be as bogus and helpful as the latest fad diet. Stay tuned!

Will 2013 Go Down as the Annus Mirabilis of the Gay Rights Struggle?

Rev. Steve Kindle
Ex. Dir. Clergy United
www.clergyunited.org

Just as Martin Luther King Jr. either prophesied or intuited, the arc of history, at least here in the USA, continues to bend toward justice.  Just a year ago, few had in mind the rapid fire changes that resulted in now 13 states offering same-sex marriage, and what looks like an irresistible march toward fifty state compliance.  I admit that I am giddy over the prospects.

Then there's the almost impossible-to-call reversal of the stance held by Exodus International, the first and largest ex-gay movement in the world, that gays could change their sexual orientation by either good counseling provided by the reparative therapy crowd, or getting right with God. The bodies that are littering the paths of all who held out such hope are staggeringly high.  Not only has EI repudiated their mission, they have called it quits! We would be celebrating this amazing turn of events were it not for so much carnage wrought getting there.

You may (I hope) have noticed my absence on this blog this past month.  Well, I've learned that when you self-publish a book, it takes as much energy after the publication to get it noticed as it did to write it. That includes writing about it as much as writing it!  So, silly me, I actually have another book on the way.  Some people can put out volumes (check out my friend, Bob Cornwall's blog and book output, for example:http://www.bobcornwall.com/).  But I'm a "bleeder," as they say in the guild.  I suffer over every word and much prefer seeing what I have written than writing it.

I bring this up because of the serendipitous moments that arrive just when you need one. Such a moment happened yesterday. My new book is for parents of gay children, If Your Child Is Gay: What every parent of a gay child needs to know to insure a positive outcome in an often negative world. It should be out next week. (Watch this space!)  I had written what I know is an obvious critique of the leaders of the "Anti-gay Industry." Here's a bit of it:

Not everyone in America is of the same mind on the subject of homosexuality, as I am sure you know. This is not to say that reasonable minds can disagree and we can leave it at that. You see, the opposition, for the most part, is unreasonable to the point of obstinacy. Why? They are most often driven by ideology, not the search for reliable facts or even interested at all in you or your children’s well-being. 

What I wrote is absolutely true, and those of us who are close to the ins and outs of the daily struggle with the Anti-gay Industry are well aware of this.  However, for a parent who is just being introduced to things gay, it is not apparent; it's even counter intuitive to believe that. They come off so sincere and righteous.  So, I knew I had to find a way to make this point and one was not easily at hand.  Until yesterday, that is. So here is how I was able to finish the thought:

A recent apology to the entire gay community from a long-time lobbyist for the largest anti-gay ministry in the world, Randy Thomas, underscores this. Here is part of what he admitted to on July 22, 2013, in a posting on his personal blog http://randythomas.co/2013/07/23/apology/ : 

"I participated in the hurtful echo chamber of condemnation. I gave lip service to the gay community, but really did not exemplify compassion for them. I placed the battle over policy [read: ideology] above my concern for real people. I sometimes valued the shoulder pats I was given by religious leaders more than Jesus' commandment to love and serve. That was wrong and I'm disappointed in myself. Please forgive me."

As could be predicted, the Industry was out in force jamming his blog with so much hateful commenting about his apology that Randy had to install a comment review program before posting any more comments. Such is the behaviour of those who supposedly do their work out of love for humanity.

The huge increase in gay marriage rights and the decline of Exodus International in 2013 may very well mean that this year will be looked upon as the Annus Mirabilis of the Gay Rights Movement, even as 1963 is for the Civil Rights Movement.  Martin Luther King would be proud. 

It's Not Over--by a Longshot

Rev. Steve Kindle, Ex. Dir
Clergy United, Inc.
www.clergyunited.org

My friend and writer for the Ex-Gay Watch, Michael Airhart, visited Judson Memorial Church in NYC on Pride Sunday. The sermon  found here from Community Minister Micah Bucey reminded the congregation that the struggle for gay dignity is far from over. Here's a salient quote from the sermon

We, as a queer community, even as we celebrate immense progress, are in danger of inactively disappearing our own people. Our Marriage Equality campaigns have embraced the institution and ignored the less easily assimilated members of our queer community. Our visibility is helping kids to come out at younger ages, but some are being kicked out of their homes, coming to New York City to find community and, in a terrible twist, being booted off of the piers by the very residents of the Village who came here decades ago to find their own safely queer space.

There's a general impression that with the right to marry, LGBTs have achieved full equality. Setting aside for the moment that full equality means 50 state participation, and employment protection, as well as myriad other goals not yet achieved, this victory is only for those who are easily assimilated into the wider culture.  There are many others not yet the focus of concern and, as Bucey points out, are becoming rarer even on the  radar screens of the gay community.  These include the young, poor, and queerer, especially the "I's and Ts."   Intersexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, transgender, and transitioning still have miles to go before they can rest in the security of public acceptance and equal rights.

Only recently have the "Is and Ts" been welcome in the movement, an ironic situation, since the historic moment of Stonewall was largely accomplished by transvestites refusing to be abused by NYC police. They have been on the outside looking in for most of the decades of the rise of the gay rights movement. Casual observers of social change aren't aware of the animosities that existed, and still do in some areas, between gays and lesbians, and LGBs and Ts.

I was attending a cocktail party hosted by a prominent gay organization where a transexual was a featured speaker.  She was mingling in the crowd when a gay man approached me with a question. "Is she (formerly a man, now a woman) straight or gay?"  "I don't know," I said. "But she definitely is queer!"  Thus the acronym is expanded to include Qs, people who don't normally fit into neat categories.  And because they don't easily fit into nicely received gender roles, they struggle for acceptance, even among those who should know better.

Another story will help illustrate my point. When I was a pastor of a church in Honolulu, our church president was a pre-op transsexual.  Formerly, Jane was a Marine who fought in Vietnam and still was a hulking, imposing figure. My wife was not as familiar with Ts as I, and her comfort level was low.  She was full of anxiety as to what to say to her, how to say it, and didn't want to embarrass Jane or herself. But she made the effort. One day she confessed to me that she no longer had any anxieties. She discovered, in the midst of a conversation about fingernail care with Jane, that the "otherness" completely disappeared and she was simply talking with another woman.  My point? Until we as a society can get as comfortable with those less like ourselves, as we have with gays in general, the Is and Ts and Qs will remain on the edges of society, even on the edges of gay society.

So, let's not rest on our victory laurels just yet. In fact, we need to double down on our support of Is, Ts, and Qs. Martin Luther King's standard is still true that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." LGBTIQ is not just an acronym.  It represents a people who deserve the dignity inherent in all yet still denied to some. The cause continues.